Beware if you rely on Park Boulevard for access to Highway 13, Interstate 580 or other parts of the East Bay — you can expect discomfort if a current traffic management plan continues to be the Oakland City Council’s preferred option.

The idea is to convert one lane in each direction exclusively for bicycles, as has happened with Grand Avenue and upper Broadway. Such dramatic reduction for auto flow, however, has not worked out that well for those two locations. Pedestrians are not significantly safer, cyclists are seen infrequently and motorists waste time. And this is being done with taxpayer money.

It is called a “road diet.” Your ability to get to work, to necessary errands and to other life activities are supposed to go on a crash diet so a quite-small number of cyclists can use a dedicated lane. Pedestrian safety does not require lane reduction. Pedestrian and cyclist safety can be met in ways that do not subjugate the needs of the vast majority using boulevards to run their lives and our economy.

Instead of transforming one lane in each direction for bikes only, a better option in this situation is to continue the existing lane sharing on Park Boulevard — with the addition of proper lane markings and signage to inform everyone using the boulevard how sharing works. In addition, upgrade or add state-of-the-art crosswalks for pedestrians, as appropriate, and everybody wins.

What is lane sharing? A substantial portion, or all of the shared lane, is painted and maintained as bright green with icons and signs indicating cyclists have the right to use this lane just like a vehicle. Obviously, vehicles can use the green lane when there are no cyclists (which is usually). Let’s look at nearby examples of lane sharing and lane reduction.

Lane sharing is working well on 40th Street in Oakland. The appropriate lanes are painted green with large icons, and traffic flows along with cyclists in the middle of those roadways. On the other hand, parts of Grand Avenue converted to road diet and observations during any evening or morning commute reveal that cyclists are still often not in sight and the auto flow is sluggish. This is a terrible use of space and terrible use of people’s time. And this has now increased traffic into Piedmont neighborhoods and parts of Oakland as drivers commuting to destinations north and east often jump off a stalled Grand and take a flowing if indirect tour through Piedmont.

Before forcing a road diet on Park Boulevard, why not focus on the addition/upgrading of proper lane markings and signage for existing lane sharing? Already there are quite small “sharrow” icons painted on these lanes. But these are too small and worn from traffic. An updated maintenance plan to properly alert and/or inform users of lane sharing would include painting shared lanes and signage similar to 40th Street. Why not try this and see how the audience of users responds?

Pedestrian safety can be improved with upgrading crosswalks, such as has been done in Kirkland on the east side of Seattle. They installed midblock crosswalks with overhead blinking lights activated by pedestrians when needed and implemented school walk routes.

In the Los Angeles area road diets have not worked well. One “road diet” on Vista del Mar near Dockweiler State Beach was reversed after two lawsuits and the intervention of L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn due to a widespread perception that the plan had made matters worse for most citizens. Culver Boulevard was also restored from lane reduction after resulting traffic jams led to intense local pushback.

The problems created by converting a vehicle lane or an existing shared lane are hidden. To see the damage you have to enter the daily lives of the thousands of people who rely on our infrastructure to do their jobs, participate in our social institutions and enliven the thousands of businesses and community organizations undergirding the social fabric. That’s where the hidden savaging of life occurs.

But those pushing the road diet plan argue that if you time the lights the traffic will flow. Not true for commute times. It is disrespectful to ask us to believe that. The process thus far has entailed meager public information and poorly advertised but mandatory neighborhood meetings at which no open conversation is permitted. They talk, you listen. You’re allowed to write down a comment on a card, which they “publish” on a web site few seem to see.

The proposed Park Boulevard road diet is an unacceptable use of space and taxpayer money and an unacceptable exclusion of many stakeholders in a participative two-way communication process. Speak out and oppose the current plan for a road diet on Park Boulevard. Contact your City Council members now.